Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Water John

I won't go arguing it, but only about 50 MPs favour a Crash out Brexit, less than 10%. Most MPs know it would be an economic and social disaster.

It might not be Corbyn. There would be further discussion, much probably already has taken place, on who should move the vote, so as to take the partisan bias out of it.

seamus

^^^^

I guess the problem as everyone sees it, is that avoiding a crash-out requires action. It requires unity of some description, it will require a vote in the HoC for a way forward that a majority of the house agree on.

And at this moment in time it seems that majority agreement on any way forward is a long way away. It's all well and good to say that 90% of the house agree that no deal is the worst thing, but unless you can get them to agree on something else, then no deal is inevitable.

At the moment, Rome is burning and there are four Neros, all fiddling to their own tunes.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

I won't go arguing it, but only about 50 MPs favour a Crash out Brexit, less than 10%. Most MPs know it would be an economic and social disaster.

It might not be Corbyn. There would be further discussion, much probably already has taken place, on who should move the vote, so as to take the partisan bias out of it.

I just cannot see this happening. Labour as are divided as the Tories on this (just not as toxic). So whilst the majority may not what a no deal, as pointed out above it is not as simple as voting against it. They must propose an actual way out of it.

And if we have learned anything from Brexit is that people tend not to have any coherent plans, just whatever is right in front of them.

Are the Tory MP's going to essentially vote no confidence in the government, thus likely costing themselves seats far earlier than 2022?
Can Corbyn really do such an about turn as to now want remain?

Clock is ticking and time is against all the options except for No Deal

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just cannot see this happening. Labour as are divided as the Tories on this (just not as toxic). So whilst the majority may not what a no deal, as pointed out above it is not as simple as voting against it. They must propose an actual way out of it.

And if we have learned anything from Brexit is that people tend not to have any coherent plans, just whatever is right in front of them.

Are the Tory MP's going to essentially vote no confidence in the government, thus likely costing themselves seats far earlier than 2022?
Can Corbyn really do such an about turn as to now want remain?

Clock is ticking and time is against all the options except for No Deal

But where is the equivalent of the ERG/DUP in Lab/Lib/SNP ranks? There is no appetite for No Deal on opposition benches.

josip

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think we have really been given support it is just that Ireland's interests to avoid a hard border coincided with the EU's desire to make brexit difficult for the UK. The problem is that making brexit difficult for the UK may have an outcome that Ireland does not want.

The EU aren't making brexit difficult, the UK are making brexit difficult.
Their choice, not ours.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

I won't go arguing it, but only about 50 MPs favour a Crash out Brexit, less than 10%. Most MPs know it would be an economic and social disaster.

It might not be Corbyn. There would be further discussion, much probably already has taken place, on who should move the vote, so as to take the partisan bias out of it.

It is not about people wanting to crash out; the crash out is the default option unless they:

a) Vote to approve the deal on the table
or
b) Vote to have a new referendum

If the parliament don't do one of those two items then UK will crash out no matter if they don't want to or not. That's the problem here and why my money is still on accidental crash out which I've stated over a year now.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

It is not about people wanting to crash out; the crash out is the default option unless they:

a) Vote to approve the deal on the table
or
b) Vote to have a new referendum

If the parliament don't do one of those two items then UK will crash out no matter if they don't want to or not. That's the problem here and why my money is still on accidental crash out which I've stated over a year now.

Article 50 can be deferred. There is also the possibility of a GE fought on softer v harder Brexit.

Bit cynical

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The answer to this was and continues to be (and will continue to be) that, if faced with the following choices:

A) A negotiated settlement that compromises SM integrity and the working operation of the GFA

B1) No Deal with a consequent imposition of a Hard Border
B2) Clear violations of GFA commitments on the part of the UK
B3) Economic hardships in the UK as a consequence of a disorderly exit

Then we take the second choice. Because it creates a possibility in the short to medium term of recovering the current situation. If we negotiate away the current situation then it is gone forever and, worse, we agreed to it.

However what the EU is saying to one of its departing members is that leaving the customs union is unacceptable to the EU and no further negotiations are possible since leaving the customs union can't be done without leaving a hard border (or splitting the country in some way that moves the customs border within the state).

On the face of it - I think most people would agree - this position is not reasonable. It is not consistent with the principle that member states are free to leave the EU and its institutions.

It only seems reasonable to us in Ireland because we very much want to avoid a hard border. But us wanting something strongly does not make it reasonable at the EU level.

If the result is a hard border in Ireland as a result of no deal, then from the EU's perspective, so be it. It is a lesson to other prospective leaving states: "we will find some stumbling block for you to trip over". But the EU as a whole will not suffer much, therefore they can adopt a hardline, inflexible approach. Ireland will face hardship of similar magnitude to the UK, but from the EU's perspective, Ireland is a tiny fraction of the EUs population and economy.

Why is Ireland going along with it? Because politically it is very hard to back down from the earlier posistion when it was believed that the UK would do anything for a deal. The only leverage Ireland has with the EU is that it is threatening not to enforce border infrastructure in the event of no deal.

seamus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But where is the equivalent of the ERG/DUP in Lab/Lib/SNP ranks?

Corbyn.

It's a perfect little mess. If Corbyn wasn't the Labour leader, Labour would be a juggernaut fighting to reverse Brexit or negotiate a really soft deal. They would have savaged the Tories already, capitalising on their infighting.

But Corbyn is standing in the way because he cannot bring himself to stand in favour of the EU. He wants the strongest Brexit reasonably possible so that the UK can extricate itself easily from EU involvement in the coming years.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But where is the equivalent of the ERG/DUP in Lab/Lib/SNP ranks? There is no appetite for No Deal on opposition benches.

Kate Howey and a few others come to mind.

As others have pointed out the problem is not that they won't want to stop a no deal, but how many would be willing to accept the current deal to avoid it (as that is the only deal on the table at present).

Or possibly trigger cancellation.

TM is betting that enough MP's are so against either No Deal or No Brexit that they will simply accept the current deal.

Tell me how

Nody wrote: »

It is not about people wanting to crash out; the crash out is the default option unless they:

a) Vote to approve the deal on the table
or
b) Vote to have a new referendum

If the parliament don't do one of those two items then UK will crash out no matter if they don't want to or not. That's the problem here and why my money is still on accidental crash out which I've stated over a year now.

They could look for an extension (which I think the EU would no longer countenance given recent days).

Or, revoke it, have a GE and then invoke it again. EU would hate this but they can't really stop the UK if they take this path.

They might pull current deal and suggest a new one will be less favourable.

gimli2112

Shelga wrote: »

Do people like Davis genuinely think the EU is going to backtrack at the very last minute? Why would they?

The UK has a hell of a lot more to lose than the EU, in the event of a no deal. What a colossal risk to take, when it's now clear that it's a bluff anyway.

I've seem this mentioned a few times in the media recently. The notion put forward is the EU ALWAYS move or compromise at the last minute. I'm no expert and I'm not sure the people saying it were either but there seems to be a growing belief this is factually correct.

cml387

Nody wrote: »

It is not about people wanting to crash out; the crash out is the default option unless they:

a) Vote to approve the deal on the table
or
b) Vote to have a new referendum

If the parliament don't do one of those two items then UK will crash out no matter if they don't want to or not. That's the problem here and why my money is still on accidental crash out which I've stated over a year now.

The only hope is that, faced with the default no deal, Labour finally get off the fence and vote for some kind of version of the WA.

I think this will need a full scale rebellion against Corbyn, because he will stick to the insistence on a general election.

If that doesn't happen before March, he will say that the chaos that ensues is the Conservatives fault not his.

Laois_Man

Shelga wrote: »

Do people like Davis genuinely think the EU is going to backtrack at the very last minute? Why would they?

Yes they do. Him and others continuously stated opinion is that industry, such as the German car makers, will put pressure on Merkel to give the UK a better deal and similar will happen in France and elsewhere and they'll "Come runing doen the road after us" - an exact quote. They also state 80% of World trade happens on WTO terms today and there's no chaos with it. All will be Honkey Dorey - forgetting to mention that actually, only 7 very small countries trade with the EU on WTO terms alone and without supplementary bilateral agreements!

I even heard Nigel Farage on Sky News yesterday saying WTO would be no problem but conceding that some sort of a phased transition would be needed - nobody has offered them any phased transition! And of course, he wasn't called out on it!

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

The EU have tried. Short of sending them state aid like a 3rd world country (or intentionally side the trade deal towards the UK like some do in lieu of state aid) they could not be more accommodating. The EU wanted a soft border because well, it is in the interest of EU citizens (Irish) to not have it and it is no skin off the rest of them.

I would agree that the EU will not be with Ireland through everything. Everyone has their own interests in the club. No other country will ever be totally with Ireland through everything. All we, or any other country, can do is make deals with countries whose interests align with your own. That means the EU.

I think there's an assumption behind this post that there will be a deal. That is not certain.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

Corbyn.

It's a perfect little mess. If Corbyn wasn't the Labour leader, Labour would be a juggernaut fighting to reverse Brexit or negotiate a really soft deal.

But Corbyn is standing in the way because he cannot bring himself to stand in favour of the EU. He wants the strongest Brexit reasonably possible so that the UK can extricate itself easily from EU involvement in the coming years.

Labour would be in power only for Corbyn. His personal views are no longer important in the face of Labour MPs, the party, increasingly Labour voters and Momentum. He's decided to play the game now.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what the EU is saying to one of its departing members is that leaving the customs union is unacceptable to the EU and no further negotiations are possible since leaving the customs union can't be done without leaving a hard border (or splitting the country in some way that moves the customs border within the state).

On the face of it - I think most people would agree - this position is not reasonable. It is not consistent with the principle that member states are free to leave the EU and its institutions.

What is unreasonable about it?

Leaving the Single Market necessitates border infrastructure. This is simply a statement of fact. The GFA essentially requires no hard border, at the very least it requires it politically if not legally. These things were, are and will remain incompatible. It also really shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what the EU is saying to one of its departing members is that leaving the customs union is unacceptable to the EU and no further negotiations are possible since leaving the customs union can't be done without leaving a hard border (or splitting the country in some way that moves the customs border within the state).

What? The EU have fully accepted that the UK is leaving, hence the last two years of negotiation.

Where is renegotiation in other leave? I never saw that as part of the plan. Where does it mention it in article 50?

Of course there needs to be a hard border, any country outside of the EU currently has a hard border with the EU. Why would the UK be any different?

The EU is making the point that the GFA is in effect and that menas that the UK have an obligation to avoid a hard border, something that TM and it seems everyone in the UK agrees on. So the UK need to come up with a solution of how they can operate outside the normal procedures. They have failed to do that

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Kate Howey and a few others come to mind.

As others have pointed out the problem is not that they won't want to stop a no deal, but how many would be willing to accept the current deal to avoid it (as that is the only deal on the table at present).

Or possibly trigger cancellation.

TM is betting that enough MP's are so against either No Deal or No Brexit that they will simply accept the current deal.

Howey and a few other loons aside, no opposition MPs will accept a Hard Brexit.

That's her plan but it's hopeless. Corbyn is waiting and watching as the Tories continue to implode before bringing her down.

briany

seamus wrote: »

Corbyn.

It's a perfect little mess. If Corbyn wasn't the Labour leader, Labour would be a juggernaut fighting to reverse Brexit or negotiate a really soft deal. They would have savaged the Tories already, capitalising on their infighting.

But Corbyn is standing in the way because he cannot bring himself to stand in favour of the EU. He wants the strongest Brexit reasonably possible so that the UK can extricate itself easily from EU involvement in the coming years.

Corbyn's well on the way to making Labour un-electable for a generation if he keeps on the way he's going. Right now, the British urban youth vote is without a voice, but once a one emerges, it's going to siphon off Labour's vote big time.

That's if Labour and the Conservatives even survive as parties. It could be that Brexit completely reshapes British politics as it has been known for the last century or so.

VinLieger

briany wrote: »

That's if Labour and the Conservatives even survive as parties. It could be that Brexit completely reshapes British politics as it has been known for the last century or so.

They will fight tooth and nail against a split in either party. Because if one splits and the other doesn't the two new smaller parties and their members will be out of power for several election cycles thanks to the archaic FPTP system.

If both split the UK won't have a non coalition government for a long time.

This is one of the core issues in that neither party is fighting for whats best for the country, they are fighting for whats best for their parties.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Corbyn's well on the way to making Labour un-electable for a generation if he keeps on the way he's going. Right now, the British urban youth vote is without a voice, but once a one emerges, it's going to siphon off Labour's vote big time.

That's if Labour and the Conservatives even survive as parties. It could be that Brexit completely reshapes British politics as it has been known for the last century or so.

Imagine if Leo, Simon or Micheál were leader of Labour.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

What is unreasonable about it?

Leaving the Single Market necessitates border infrastructure. This is simply a statement of fact. The GFA essentially requires no hard border, at the very least it requires it politically if not legally. These things were, are and will remain incompatible. It also really shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

Sure, leaving the single market places an obligation by the EU on remaining EU members to erect border infrastructure. What is not reasonable is for the EU to say 1. You are free to leave the single market and the customs union thereby necessitating a hard border. and 2. By the way, there can't be a hard border.


That's not a reasonable position for the EU, the GFA notwithstanding. Any country leaving the customs union will create a hard border, by requiring as part of a withrdawal agreement, the EU is saying that countries can't leave the customs union in an agreed fashion.

hill16bhoy

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just cannot see this happening. Labour as are divided as the Tories on this (just not as toxic). So whilst the majority may not what a no deal, as pointed out above it is not as simple as voting against it. They must propose an actual way out of it.

And if we have learned anything from Brexit is that people tend not to have any coherent plans, just whatever is right in front of them.

Are the Tory MP's going to essentially vote no confidence in the government, thus likely costing themselves seats far earlier than 2022?
Can Corbyn really do such an about turn as to now want remain?

Clock is ticking and time is against all the options except for No Deal

Surely though Corbyn has given himself an out on this.

The strategy he brought forward at the Labour conference was, call for a general election, failing that, see what deal would be on the table, if that wasn't to their liking, a second referendum would still be an option.

At the time, the great bulk of Labour MPs and members were not happy with this and considered it a fudge.

But all other options are going to fail. Corbyn left the door slightly ajar for that second referendum to become official Labour policy, and it's going to be pushed in as soon as May's deal fails in parliament - or not so much pushed in, as kicked down.

Corbyn is currently still going against the vast majority of opinion in his own party at all levels, including his base, the people who elected him. He can't sustain that.

VinLieger

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, leaving the single market places an obligation by the EU on remaining EU members to erect border infrastructure. What is not reasonable is for the EU to say 1. You are free to leave the single market and the customs union thereby necessitating a hard border. and 2. By the way, there can't be a hard border.


That's not a reasonable position for the EU, the GFA notwithstanding.

That's not the EU's fault though the UK signed up to the GFA. The fact they ignored the consequences of wanting to brexit while being signatories of the GFA is their fault and nobody else's.


In fact quite a lot of people tried to tell them exactly this but it was lumped into "project fear" which at this stage would be more correctly called "project fact"

Professor Moriarty

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, leaving the single market places an obligation by the EU on remaining EU members to erect border infrastructure. What is not reasonable is for the EU to say 1. You are free to leave the single market and the customs union thereby necessitating a hard border. and 2. By the way, there can't be a hard border.


That's not a reasonable position for the EU, the GFA notwithstanding. Any country leaving the customs union will create a hard border, by requiring as part of a withrdawal agreement, the EU is saying that countries can't leave the customs union in an agreed fashion.

Okay. So what's your solution?

Seth Brundle

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Article 50 can be deferred. There is also the possibility of a GE fought on softer v harder Brexit.

I don't think it can be deferred but the deadline can be extended. AFAIK this needs to be requested by any one of the EU member states. All other states will have an input on whether or not to approve the request.
The EU will only allow an extension to Art 50 if the UK commits towards a workable solution. There's no point extending the deadline if the UK still don't know what they want.
The UK cannot cancel Art 50 and then reapply to leave the EU.

sjb25

PM of Luxembourg telling the uk media how it is

https://twitter.com/brehonisbest/status/1073491717570117634?s=21

hill16bhoy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Article 50 can be deferred. There is also the possibility of a GE fought on softer v harder Brexit.

How could an election fought on such a basis happen, though?

The Tories are split between the softer Brexit of May and the no deal crash out Brexit of the ERG.

Labour reject the softer Brexit of May in favour of the unicorns of "renegotiation".

What other option is there? Norway? That doesn't look realistic.

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't think it can be deferred but the deadline can be extended. AFAIK this needs to be requested by any one of the EU member states. All other states will have an input on whether or not to approve the request.
The EU will only allow an extension to Art 50 if the UK commits towards a workable solution. There's no point extending the deadline if the UK still don't know what they want.
The UK cannot cancel Art 50 and then reapply to leave the EU.

Well, by 'deferral' I meant defer the date. Anyway, I have no doubt that the EU and all 27 would offer to wait if it was clear that a GE was going to be held on the basis of a softer/harder Brexit. Especially from Ireland's perspective, a crash out must be avoided. The EU should leave everything behind them on the pitch including waiting to see if a GE would bring the UK to its senses enough to agree a deal.